Difference between revisions of "Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia"

I find this statement to be rather hypocritical:

"Wikipedia's evolution article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section its evolution article which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position despite the evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it."

It seems like a vindictive ad hominem attack against "liberals" rather than a legitimate argument. You cannot assert that "which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored...etc." and honestly think that you are being unbiased. Sarcasm is not a valid way to respectfully argue against another's theories.

A liberal could just as easily state,

"Conservapedia's creationism article certainly does not have a robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section, which is not surprising since conservatives are rather enamored of the creationism position despite having a total lack of evidence supporting it."

and be just as "accurate" as whoever wrote the original conservative criticism. I'm not debating whether evolution or creationism is the correct theory (I'm neutral), but rather trying to suggest a way to improve your arguments. If you want to accuse someone of being baised, then you can't be biased yourself.

I deleted "Wikipedia makes no mention of the fact that Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder called the United States a "nation of cowards" when it comes to the discussion of race."

The citation was a link to an old revision of a Wikipedia page. The new revision DOES mention this. --Andrew1123 17:22, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

The claim that G. W. Bush "was called a supporter of the Nazi regime" on his wikipedia page is very believable, but could someone find a reference proving it? Sjay 20:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Looking back at the history of the "Presidency of George W. Bush" article, the Criticism section was not added to the article until July 5th, 2006. If Wikipedia had a liberal bias wouldn't they have added that much sooner? BHO has been in power for less then two months, not enough time to form a valid criticism of his presidency as a whole.

I'm sorry - and you are?

20:34, March 9, 2009 Dparker (Talk | contribs | block) New user ‎

20:44, March 9, 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia‎ (→Is #150 really relavent? (The criticism of GWB/BHO): new section)

Do you have any interest here other than this issue?

Anyway, to answer your question, the articles are not simply about criticism of the men as they acted as president. They are about them in general. B.O. has been around quite a while before January 20, 2009. Was there no criticism of him before that date? Has there been no criticism of him after it? And what, pray tell, defines criticism as "valid" or not and what is the official figure for how much time must pass for the criticism to be worthy of Wikipedia? I mean, is criticism of George W. Bush's personality - his personality for crying out loud! - valid? This is a ridiculous line from the ridiculous WP article:

"Raised in West Texas, Bush's accent, vacations on his Texas ranch, and penchant for country metaphors contribute to his folksy, American cowboy image, which occasionally served as fodder for criticism."

Oh, my dear Lord in Heaven, NOOOOOO!!!! His accent! His ranch! His metaphors! Why did we ever let such a man be president with all these valid criticisms?! Chimpeachment!

Okay, I freely admit that was gratuitous sarcasm, but it sure felt good.

Bottom line: the excuses people are putting forth to excuse the blatant B.O. worship and kowtowing on WP are lame and don't hold water. I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it. Jinxmchue 00:28, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

The WP articles are referenced in the "example of bias" are "Presidency of" articles, not general articles. You would know if you read them. But I guess reading an article on a site with a "liberal bias" is a lot to expect from someone here. Laying the sarcasm so thick isn't helping your argument either. If you think that line is so ridiculous then you've obviously blocked out the last eight years from your memory, not to mention that his attitude is probably the weakest criticism anyone has of GWB. Also, it should be mentioned that if that page on WP is ridiculous, then how do you describe this: Religion of Barack Obama. The rabbit hole of crazy goes really deep here.

Your unsigned comment is incoherent. But in answer to your question, it is biased to point of absurdity to criticize Bush for his "accent" and his "ranch". Do you see similar criticisms of Obama and Ted Kennedy on Wikipedia???--Andy Schlafly 21:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

I am confused by the entry. It is maybe linked to the wrong wikipedia article? Because right now anyway, the article "Gothic Architecture" has its whole 3rd paragraph, out of 5 in the introduction section, about churches and cathedrals. And after that, there is the section "Religious influences" which is talking about christian monastary orders. Then it does mention moslems but only to say that their architecture had pointed arches, and i agree this is bias because there is no reason to think christians did not invent pointed arches themselves, but i still think that the entry bullet point makes little sense. The article mentions christianty in the third paragraph, after maybe 100 words not 1 500. It credits Christianity first and not moslems. It mentions christians many times through out, not "never mentioning christianity again." I am not saying it is unbiased but what we say about it is incorrect in fact. And it is strange to open with this, too. The list should start with the worst, like the black-list on intelligent design and climate sceptics, the celebirty gossip, and then on. ELeger 00:24, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

I agree that this article is a poor example of bias. The article says that "Gothic architecture is most familiar as the architecture of many of the great cathedrals, abbeys and parish churches of Europe," in the first sentence of the third paragraph. These are definitely Christian buildings, not Muslim. If a specific mention of Christianity is necessary, the article mentions the Cistercians by name after 1,097 words (1,280 words if you include the table contents), which is well earlier than the claim of 1,500 words and also before any mention of Islam. Unless somebody can show Wikipedia's article on Gothic architecture to be biased, I am going to delete this entry in the list of biases. Chris3145 22:28, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

Wikipedia bias includes a refusal to credit Christianity. This is an example of that. There are many other examples also. When Wikipedia gives credit where it is due with respect to Christianity, then this entry can be updated. That hasn't happened yet at Wikipedia, and probably never will.--Andy Schlafly 00:39, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

How, exactly, does the Wikipedia article not credit Christianity? The points made in the entry are untrue: Christianity is mentioned before Islam, Christianity is mentioned well before 1500 words, and the article frequently references churches, cathedrals, and other distinctly Christian structures. The article may be biased, or it may not be, but the facts currently presented in the bullet point are not true. If you want to show that Wikipedia's article on Gothic Architecture is biased, you'll need supporting evidence that is factually correct. Maybe an older version of the article was biased?Chris3145 11:26, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

I don't have the time now but will somebody compare (and post a summary of) the existing Wikipedia DRUDGE REPORT and MATT DRUDGE entries with the existing Wikipedia entries for BILL MAHER, ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, and KEITH OLBERMANN? You will see that the DR and Matt Drudge, news aggregators, are cited in the first sentence as "conservative" while no such labels are applied to the latter pundits in even the first paragraph. Instead, they are buried well down the page or omitted entirely. In fact, it was the case recently that none were objectively called liberals but instead made use of sleight of hand, e.g., saying they had been critical of certain right-wingers at certain times, but not mentioning that they were proudly liberal. Good example of Wiki bias, in my estimation.

You're right. Thanks for your insight. Please add a point about this, or I will if you don't get around to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aschlafly (talk)

Personally, whilst I don't disagree as such with your observations, there is still an element of bias in them as well. You have cited just 3 'liberal' examples against 2 'conservative' examples. Who's to say there aren't others on each side which in fact show the opposite to what these do. It seems highly selective to select these few for comparison. The Michael Moore article for example does state in the opening that he is a 'liberal', so basically I think you would have to see how wide ranging this is before calling it bias. RobertWDP 18:59, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

You're right that we cannot make sweeping generalizations from a handful of articles, but that was never my intention. My point was that at this point in time and on each of those articles, there was resistance to "equalizing" the labels so that they were applied to all or none. The most dedicated editors made sure to protect accusations of conservatism while preventing--EVEN BANNING--those who suggested the others were liberal. Additionally, Matt Drudge is a news aggregator who has claimed to be libertarian, and he gets the 'conservative' label even while pundits who are proud and open of their liberalism get to play shy about it? And until recently, the Drudge Report was labeled while its openly liberal challenger, The Drudge Retort, was described as merely "left-leaning." In summary, I don't mean to make broad claims from narrow examples, just to acknowledge that those examples are there. Added together, hundreds or thousands of examples can suggest, if nothing else, an important trend. Iamchipdouglas 21:21, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

While I don't really agree with the comment about "Gothic Architecture" above, the author may have a point: would it be better to list the most egregious examples of bias first? Perhaps have a section for the most blatant instances of bias, and then a section for other instances? It just seems like good common sense to present the strongest arguments first. --Benp 18:00, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

Dear Conservapedia editors

Firstly, I would like to disclose that I am a regular Wikipedia editor. I wanted to thank this site for this particular article. I regularly review it for errors Wikipedia might have missed, and whilst I don't agree that every complaint raised in this article is valid, a reasonable number have proven to be correct. This site, and I wish to stress I don't agree with a lot of it, does serve as a watchdog which many Wikipedia editors value for its investigations, and helps to keep us on our toes. Thanks again. Breithaupt 14:52, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

Thank you! No place is immune from the benefits of "outside" eyes, offering suggestions or solutions. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 15:57, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

Thank you as well! I am sure that a growing number of contributors to Wikipedia are beginning to rethink their alleged objectivity and purveyors of unfettered information in a quest for the unvarnished truth, as well as a genuine effort "to present all sides" in a so-called fair manner, especially when "fairness" is tangible and wholly subjective in a multitude of cases. Their editorial staff once seemed to be the paragon of inclusion; now, an increasingly harsh tone of what cannot but be considered pious liberal subterfuge seems to confront the participant. Indeed, the forbearance manifested by the editors of Conservapedia - apparently from editors secure in their own intellect and the resilience of their faith - is a most nonthreatening and refreshing antithesis to those of us who have been savaged by an ever-noxious and insipid constriction of the truth or, as said, objectivity of the presentation. What one unfortunately faces on WP is a sort of editorial goon squad set about to investigate the alleged self-serving proprieties of them who deign to taint their presuppositions--tragic denial of their quest for greater information. I see in the current socio-religious (and socio-political) culture wars which currently afflict this nation a most disturbing phenomenon played out in the generation of information made available to the masses through the internet: The war of words and information waged between what appears to be an encroaching governmental superiority vs. the rights of man. If we are not careful, that which we feared the most shall come upon us--God help us all if the truth that sets us free is submerged in the blather of the self-righteous platitudes of so-called progressives whose purposeful and/or inadvertent desire is to manifest their disdain of any and all absolutes (especially those which the faithful project) - and in so doing, descend to a most horrible absolute wherein truth becomes fiction and fiction becomes the truth. The matter astounds - they who profess such indignity toward personal aggrandizement are countered (thankfully) by the accused who embrace their absolutes with calm and persistent expression of unfettered information which irritates the so-called guardians of information. Keep up the good work! Kriegerdwm 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)kriegerdwmKriegerdwm 00:13, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

Regarding current example 153: "Wikipedia clearly adds a "Controversies" sections to their article for the "Presidency of George W. Bush"... but not to their article on the "Presidency of Barack Obama"".

After consensus was reached on Wikipedia that this section on George W. Bush was not appropriate, it has now been removed. Breithaupt 14:10, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

The word "criticism" or "critics" appears 24 times in the George W. Bush article. It only appears twice in the article on Obama, one referring to his criticism of others. So they can reshuffle the page all they want, but it's the content that matters.--FredCorps 14:15, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Let's turn this article into a table with two columns: next to each example should be the reason Wikipedia presents the information the way they do. For example, is it policy, or just the current editorial consensus? --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:29, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

As a fairly active Wikipedia editor myself, I can attest that I post only what I can back up with primary, non-editorialized sources. That being said, this isn't always the case for all Wikipedia users. Since the site is entirely user generated, there is a great deal of room for opinion to filter in. The fact is, any user generated site, this one especially included, is prone to the whims and biases of its users, and it is the job of other editors to call attention to these biases and ensure their verification. So, if anyone has a problem with liberal bias in Wikipedia, they can fix it by posting a well cited edit, which is, unfortunately, more than I can say for this site, which allows protected and edit-proof pages. LoganBertram 6:44 9 August 2010 (EST)

I originally started editing Wikipedia about 8 months after Ed Poor, Logan. Under my original account name I racked up about double the edits than I have made to CP. What you say might have been true the first year or two of Wikipedia's existence, but certainly it is no longer true. Anyone with a liberal bias (which accounts to 90% of the administrators) and 75% of the editors, has a distinct advantage, even using acceptable sources, as the liberal-thinkers there will offer their own conflicting sources and through the device of "consensus" simply out-vote the more conservative users. If you really believe what you say, make an account under another name, edit everything from a conservative point of view, and watch the high-jinx ensue. I don't think you will be happy with the results.... --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:27, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

I tried adding to a Talk page once. Noted that Peter Daszak had continued to fund "gain of function" research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WiV) even after it had been banned in 2014 (per the grant description). Also noted that Daszak had originated the letter claiming COVID-19 couldn't have escaped from WiV (per the story showing his own emails). I felt I was charitable by suggesting a "controversies" section. My suggestions were censored - from a Talk page! When I complained about being censored I was permanently banned for - get this - clearly not being there to create an encyclopedia. So while I appreciate your claims and input, I can attest your final line is simply not true. JocelynBey1

"Non-encyclopedic" is the catchall to get rid of somebody you don't like or a troll. Even here at CP - the alternative to Wikipedia, have adopted it. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 10:43, June 2, 2021 (EDT)

Number 11, as it stands, is simply not true. The Wikipedia page currently echoes what is written on the truthorfiction site: "Emily Wyant, who had been sitting with Bernall in the library as the shootings began, asserted that the exchange did not take place. Wyant stated that she and Bernall were studying together when the gunmen broke in. According to her account Bernall exclaimed, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home." Wyant described how Eric Harris suddenly slammed his hand onto the table top and yelled "Peek-a-boo!" before fatally shooting Cassie Bernall." This is exactly what is described at the truthorfiction site. In fact, the Wikipedia article has been accurate about this since at least 2006, before the Conservapedia article was amended to include this example of supposed "bias." It should be removed. TaKess 12:47, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Please quote the sentence in Number 11 which you feel is not true. --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:55, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

"Wikipedia's entry about the Christian martyr at Columbine refuses to admit that she was murdered by an atheist as she was expressing her faith in God, as confirmed by multiple witnesses."--Actually, the Wikipedia article acknowledges that Cassie was praying, "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home," before Eric Harris shot her. This is what the link cited as a reference also claims. TaKess 12:59, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

So you are saying that Wikipedia does admit she was murdered by an atheist? --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:03, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

Is Wikipedia's failure to note Eric Harris's atheism what is considered "biased"? If so, I guess 11 should stand. The sentence makes it sound like Wikipedia didn't note that Bernall was praying when she was shot (which it does). In any case, the truthorfiction site linked doesn't note Harris as an atheist, either. I'm sure he was but I don't have a link off-hand for it--I'll try to find one later. TaKess 13:15, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

While alot of this article is valid, alot of negative words are being used. This simply makes the facts come across as angry attacks at wikipedia. Words like "vulger", "frivolous" and "blatant" aren't neccessary and make this wikipedia look very unprofessional. If anybody has any concern with the removal of these words, let me know. --Carceous 08:00, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

I largely agree with Carceous. My opinion has always been that it is more effective to present facts of what happened (kinda like Tucker Carlson) rather than express negative opinions (kinda like Sean Hannity). Readers and listeners form their own opinions. I fully understand the desire to call the *#@## that wikipedia engages in *#@## and sometimes do so myself. But I feel it is not as effective. JocelynBey1

Racistpedia

I checked the link, and a good majority of the search results are from book titles, song/album names, direct quotes, and other such media. In the first 50 results, only 8 instances can be justified as being frivolous--not in the form of a proper noun or direct quotes. JonG^{Tennisu no Boifriendo} 21:40, 27 June 2009 (EDT)

I concur. Wikipedia isn't perfect, and I hope my posts have demonstrated that is my view, but most of the results are legitimate. Breithaupt 20:04, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

These postings are incoherent. What are you referring to?--Andy Schlafly 20:11, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

My sincere apologies for not replying earlier. #164 says "The scope and depth of racism prevalent on Wikipedia is despicable. Over a thousand pages that include the ethnic slur 'Nigger', many in the page title." What I, and I think JonG, was getting at, is that the results listed when you click the link at the end of #164, are mostly legitimate; i.e. the word "nigger" is used in the title for songs, books, even an island which have names with the word "nigger", and that makes those results legitimate because if that is their names then Wikipedia can't really call them anything else. Hope that clears things up. Breithaupt 19:37, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

You make a valid point. But "mostly legitimate" is not all that reassuring. Also, I sense the liberal double standard: liberals often think it's OK for liberals to utter racist terms, but will savage any conservative who does. Surely no one denies the existence of that double standard, and surely no one defends it.--Andy Schlafly 13:31, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

It's not just Wikipedia. Mark Twain was called a racist way back in the 1970s for using the word nigger nearly 1,000 times in Huckleberry Finn. It's just as much an anti-slavery novel as Stowe's Uncle Tom, but some professor counted all the words and assumed that the more times the word is used, the more racist the author must be. I always ask liberals if they recall reading the part where Huck pretends to have been washed off the raft during a storm. His poignant realization that Jim cares more about him than his own father ever did, shows the reader that blacks are just as human as anyone else is. Surely, a novel teaching a lesson like that merits the use of authentic dialogue. --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:58, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Is it agreed then that this particular bullet point is not a legitimate complaint against Wikipedia? Chris3145 21:57, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

Looks like Wikipedia is trying to hide up an embarrassing scandal it's involved in. [1] Check out how it has been nominated for deletion. Maybe this is significant enough for a front-page report? Breithaupt 09:26, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

This ref [2] says "Wikipedia appoints supposedly impartial and unpaid moderators to review and correct changes," about one member of its 15-strong international arbitration committee is a fraud. Plus, another ref [3]--Jpatt 13:09, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

I removed a few lines of things that were off topic, such as the 'while wikipedia has a rainbow banner on the page regarding homosexuality it fails to list the related higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases'

I don't think mentioning that they have rainbow banners is relevant to anything, that is until I see a cult of conservatives who secretly love rainbows. This is highly unlikely.

Well, it says that Wikipedia has a "smear of Conservapedia" and you guys are mad about this...so why not go on Wikipedia and edit it to what you want? After all, you don't need an account to edit Wikipedia, so it'd be quick and easy. KnightOfTheNightKnightOfTheNight

Such edits would last a mere few minutes, if not mere seconds. Liberal, Conservapedia-hating editors would make sure of that (and they'd gang up to game the three-revert-rule to ensure their preferred viewpoint prevailed). Jinx McHue 20:49, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

Can we make a list of facts which are well-referenced but deliberately omitted from Wikipedia articles, along with our best guess as to their motivation for concealing the fact? I daresay a list like that could even be maintained at Wikipedia, on some user subpage at least.

If we get enough cases together, we can rally some support to lobby for the inclusion of these omitted facts - if they are indeed being removed due to something like anti-religious bias.

Or can we start an article (here, of course) on such themes as scientists with a religious motivation? --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:38, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

People, if you think all these things in wikipedia are biased then why not just edit them with valid sources to support your edit? seems simple enough, and if wikipedia was as pro liberal as you claim then wouldnt the conservative page be alot more smeared? it seems factual to me, if established and proven facts conflict with your ideas of the articles' subject, find something valid that challenges whichever part you find conflicts with your views, otherwise accept that your view has been proven wrong for the time being, instead of calling it liberal bias. Euaaan 22:56, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

That "seems simple enough" to someone who doesn't understand the liberal mobocracy that runs Wikipedia. Many Wikipedians quickly revert the conservative truth. These Wikipedians view their role in life as censoring conservative insights and observations wherever possible.

If you doubt it, then you can try to editing Wikipedia to fix any of the over 100 biased entries listed here. Watch how quickly it is reverted and/or distorted to conform to the liberal/atheistic mindset.--Andy Schlafly 23:30, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Well i would have to disagree with you there, a while back i edited the article on "elitism" to remove an image of barrack obama which was the flagship image of the entire article, it had been there for quite a while, atleast a month if i remember right. Anyway, most of the time i have seen conservative viewpoints removed from wiki is because they are just that: viewpoints, not properly cited. I'm sure there are examples of liberal bias on wikipedia, but my example just goes to show there are also conservative ones, its not just one sided.Euaaan 23:43, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

You're free to take any opinion you like, but the list of examples of bias far exceeds 100, and many Wikipedians are well aware of it. They like Wikipedia because it has liberal bias and gossip.--Andy Schlafly 00:15, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

Euaaan, I tried editing the wiki talk page on Peter Daszak to mention that he had engaged in continuing funding of gain of function research after Obama's 2014 ban (per the grant description found on-line), and that he had drafted and originated the journal "letter" claiming COVID-19 could not possibly, never ever, have come from a lab (per the emails also on-line), even claiming he had no competing interests. I felt I was being charitable putting these in a section labeled "controversies." It was reverted and re-reverte. All this for a talk page suggestion! When I complained about censorship I was permanently banned. So no, I don't agree with you at all. Look at the pages on most controversial American issues and you'll see their is a clear bias on page after page. Look at my example of how I was treated and you'll see why. --Jocelyn Bey

You need to understand the "national security concerns" as to why this happened or happens. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 10:50, June 2, 2021 (EDT)

The Wikipedia page for Jim Pouillon is here: Jim Pouillon

First of all, I'd like to say that I fully support the idea of a Conservative-based encyclopedia. But you make an encyclopedia that is a hundred times as biased as Wikipedia, and you justify it by saying that Wikipedia is biased as well. Pages on Conservapedia are full of negative critics towards Liberals. Wikipedia may have a bias (Note please; if ALL conservative users on Conservapedia would just edit Wikipedia's pages into genuinely balanced pages, this would not be an issue) but it is nowhere nearly as awful as the bias on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia, articles do not criticize people with certain opinions. They do not pretend to be appalled by the oh-so devastating thought of people not agreeing with them. On Conservapedia there are pages like Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?. Instead of accepting that opinions aren't moral crimes, and that your opinion's value equals a liberal's opinion's value, you portray liberals as ignorant, morally unjustifiable idiots, who are brainwashed by modern science. Now tell me, is that what "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" is supposed to look like? I am willing to debate about this. --Arno Sluismans 2:00PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)

"GatesOfDawn" (what a ridiculous user name!), you lost credibility when you claimed that conservatives could add the truth on Wikipedia. It's like trying to reason with a lynch mob. Wikipedians do not tolerate truthful edits on politically sensitive issues.

Unfortunately, I doubt you have a clue about "modern science" and you have this backwards: it's liberals who just passed a hate crimes bill that criminalizes opinion, and it's liberals who censor prayer in public school. Conservatives believe in free speech.

Open your mind a bit, please, for your own sake. Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 14:49, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

First of all, my name being ridiculous is already a pretty narrow minded thing to say. It's a reference to a great piece of art. Anyway, that's not the point of this conversation.

I think your reaction already shows what I mean. I speak about "opinions" and "beliefs", you speak about "the truth". The things that you call truth are often half proven, half disproven, meaning that it's everybody's personal choice what to think of it. Many reasonable Conservapedia users prefer to see everything from a biblical point of view, trying to relate things to God's work, while I, and many other reasonable Liberals, see things from a mathematical and scientific point of view.

I'm rather new to Conservapedia, but, for example, I've seen pages in which is matter-of-factly mentioned that God created earth about 6000 years ago. This makes me wonder how it is possible that scientists have been (quite accurately) able to estimate dead livings' age through C14-isotopes, finding out that some of them are tens of thousands years old? Other, more accurate ways of determining a cadaver's age, have showed us that certain species even used to live hundreds of millions years ago. Doesn't this show you that literal biblical quotes should be taken with a grain of salt? On another note, the Bible was written by humans, during times when science was not as correct as it is now. For instance, the Bible claims that earth is a flat disk, while every broad minded person nowadays understands that it is a sphere.

Another thing: "Conservatives believe in free speech," you say. I have a question for you, then: If I go and edit the Evolution page, adding a list of plausible evidence for the theory of evolution, would it last long? I see a list of implausible evidence, and quite some critics contra-evolution. So would Conservapedians be okay with me adding some "reason to believe" to that page?

Oh, and please don't tell me there is no plausible evidence for the theory of evolution, which you might have been thinking of saying. You know just as well as I do that there is plenty of it.--Arno Sluismans 11:09PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)

'GatesofDawn' why don't you read our Evolution and Carbon dating pages with an open mind. While you're at it, read our Liberal Style article. JohnFraiser 17:29, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

John Fraiser, the Liberal Style is actually a great article. But please, rename it to "A person arguing with somebody with an opposite opinion Style". You're trying to make Liberals seem like desperate kids who have nothing reasonable to say. The truth is that, in an argument, people simply have a certain style of writing and speaking. And since Liberals argue, and Conservatives don't (they just state their point and say it is true), this article only applies to Liberals when it comes to writing style on Conservapedia.

I had expected a more open minded discussion here, hoping my reasonable post would trigger reasonable answers. Yet instead of replying with supportive arguments and examples of where I'm wrong, you pretend I'm a retard whose sole purpose is to be laughed at. Seriously, people, your Trustworthy Encyclopedia has a long way to go.--Arno Sluismans 11:43PM, 11 October 2009 (GMT+2)

Who names himself after a "piece of art"??? From that starting point you ramble on a way not worth responding to. Scientific wannabees are fooled by the radiometric dating, not realizing the rates of decay have certainly changed over time since the origin. Perhaps you fell for the global warming fraud also; I've found the overlap between belief in evolution and belief in global warming to be nearly 100%.

The Bible is the most logical book ever written. If you spent just 10% of the time that you chase evolution frauds on actually reading the Bible, you'd have an entirely better outlook on life. Do yourself a favor.--Andy Schlafly 19:05, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

Funny how things that aren't in the United States end up being featured on the WORLD WIDE web. PeterF 11:05, 1 November 2009 (EST)

You miss the point. If the world's biggest and most competitive economy doesn't use something, not even once, then it's not a good example of engineering. Surely people aren't so anti-American to miss that obvious point.--Andy Schlafly 11:09, 1 November 2009 (EST)

I see in the current version of the article six images--the wind turbines off the coast of Belgium, a Spanish example of a British steam engine, a German turbine, the American space shuttle, a Québecois bio-engineering facility, and the Italian Leonardo Da Vinci.Given that there's nothing from a Asian or African country, I'd say the US, if anything, is OVER-represented in that list, in terms of being representative of the number of people in the world and how they relate to engineering. Why not a well with a hand-pump, say, or a bicycle--the types of engineering that most human beings encounter on a daily basis. PeterF 11:18, 1 November 2009 (EST)

Are you saying that you've fallen for Wikipedia's notorious placement bias? Most viewers don't read beyond the top screen. That's where the bias is.--Andy Schlafly 11:22, 1 November 2009 (EST)

You're not addressing my point about the non-western world being completely ignored in the article in question. Besides that, in terms if your irrelevant tangent, I don't know about most readers. I read the whole article. That's how I learned to read in public school and from my professor-values-addled professors in college. The whole article. PeterF 11:26, 1 November 2009 (EST)

Peter, you're in denial. You well know that the top of an article is the most important, and by far the most widely read. Your refusal to admit that results in a loss in credibility, and makes a discussion about bias with you pointless.--Andy Schlafly 11:29, 1 November 2009 (EST)

Sure, the top is most important, which is why I'd love to see a hand-pump or something similar as the first image. What's a true sign of denial, however, is your refusal to admit the images in the article completely overlook the majority of humanity. Unless you're able to shed your US/Eurocentrism, and deal with the real problems in the article in question, I see no point in discussing with you further. PeterF 11:34, 1 November 2009 (EST)

This may be a moot point as it stands, as the article now has a steam engine at the top of it. MichaelZ 19:51, 11 November 2009 (EST)

[4]

Worth including?

--Benp 17:45, 11 November 2009 (EST)

You know, the clear bias is that in the sentence after they state they prefer the use of "God" over "Allah," they point out that the God of Islam should be a distinct addition to only the first mention of God. They are differentiating between the gods, just in a very subliminal, slimey way. -- Jeff W. Lauttamus_Discussion 17:48, 11 November 2009 (EST)

Any other thoughts on this? I'm leaning strongly towards adding it...especially given the comment on the same page about how the word terrorism is 'contentious.' So's blowing up innocent people, if you ask me. --Benp 19:41, 11 November 2009 (EST)

The WP article on "Argumentum ad populum" has several anti-religion statements in it. MichaelZ 20:57, 11 November 2009 (EST)

If you actually look at the article, tha caption of the turbine picture states: 'Offshore wind turbines represent a modern multi disciplinary engineering problem.'; stating they rae not an example of fully competent engineering.

The statement is incoherent, and doesn't fool anyone here. A turbine is not "a problem," for starters.

The presentation of a picture of wind turbines creates the false impression that it IS "an example of fully competent engineering."--Andy Schlafly 17:11, 15 December 2009 (EST)

Links:

• Hans Bethe
• John Kerry
• Manhattan Project
• atomic bomb
• quantum physics
• Nobel Prize
• SDI
• nuclear proliferation

Why is this line included in the section on SDI?: "with inexplicable prominence given to criticisms by Hans Bethe, a European-raised scientist who later endorsed John Kerry for president." Why is the prominence given his criticisms "inexplicable"? He was an important member of the Manhattan Program designing the first atomic bomb, he was an professor of quantum physics, and he won the Nobel Prize for physics. If ANYONE is in a position to criticize the SDI project and nuclear proliferation, it would probably be him. Plus, he was an important advocate for nuclear non-proliferation, so his inclusion would seem to make perfect sense.

Furthermore, the inclusion of the tidbit that he endorsed John Kerry strikes this reader as specious and anachronistic. He criticized SDI in the 1980s, long before endorsing John Kerry for president. While his disarmament politics may have influenced his endorsement, the wording of the sentence makes it sound as though his criticism was a result of his support for Kerry. --Rubashov 11:30, 20 January 2010 (EST)

You inflate Hans Bethe's achievements, perhaps because you like his liberal politics. SDI is an engineering project, and Bethe didn't know diddly-squat about engineering. But apparently he knew his politics: he was a left-winger, and that explains his absurd criticism of SDI best.--Andy Schlafly 12:06, 20 January 2010 (EST)

Regardless of his politics, I don't "inflate" his achievements at all. All the things that I listed him as doing: Manhattan Project, professor, and Nobel Prize winner are all factually and verifiably true; they are not in dispute. And whether he is correct or not, his inclusion in the Wikipedia entry as a critic of SDI is not at all "inexplicable," as he was not only a critic of the project but an important one given his standing in the scientific community. He wrote influential papers on the subject of SDI. --Rubashov 13:23, 20 January 2010 (EST)

You claimed he was an "important" member of the Manhattann Project "designing" the "first" atomic bomb. That is an exaggeration. You claimed that "if ANYONE is in a position to criticize the SDI project," then it would be this liberal hack Bethe. The guy was clueless about engineering, had no training or accomplishment in it, and was little more than a liberal blowhard. It is obvious liberal bias for Wikipedia to give such prominence to his distorted and uninformed opinion.--Andy Schlafly 13:54, 20 January 2010 (EST)

Liberals, progressives, specialize in stating half-truths. The fact that SDI was so pathologically opposed, and still is, by progressives/liberals and communists is proof on the face of it, otherwise they wouldn't have the "concerns" they do. What a silly, time-wasting nit pick this is! Rubashov, get some integrity and/or find the truth. It will set you free. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 17:06, 20 January 2010 (EST)

I'll concede the point that perhaps Bethe was not THE MOST qualified person to criticize SDI, that might have been overstatement. But, I don't feel it is nitpicking to point out that the man was an important critic of the program and thus it makes sense for the original wikipedia article to consider him as such. It is certainly no more "nitpicking" than the original observation that he was cited in wikipedia. Furthermore, that Bethe was a nuclear physicist and not an "engineer" hardly makes him a "hack." And, I don't think that attacking the man in such a way does much to elevate the discussion. As I am not an engineer, and I don't believe you are either Andy, I don't see how either of us have the requisite knowledge to call his criticisms of SDI "absurd"? We certainly don't have any more engineering background than did Bethe when he made them (if not less). And, let us not forget, that even if Bethe was not an engineer, the fact remains that SDI still doesn't work and isn't defending anyone from anything. So, maybe the man wasn't so far off.

Moreover, I don't see how you know anything about my "politics," Andy, or my "integrity," TK, as neither of you have ever met me. I sincerely suggested that the section on this person be removed because it seemed the chaff weighing down the wheat. While there may be liberal bias on wikipedia, this struck me as little more than a "nitpicking" example (to turn TK's phrase) that would turn off the informed reader. But, if you would rather end our discussion by disparaging me as a person with pseudo-insults and snide asides, then so be it.... It's your website, grind your axes and do with it what you will.

p.s. TK -- The opposition by some liberals to SDI is not necessarily proof that liberals are duplicitous purveyors of half-truths. Support for the program is not somehow self-evident. There are perfectly logical reasons that one can not support a program or ideology that don't boil down to "he's a liar and a bad man."

Hans Bethe has no more credibility in criticizing SDI than Sean Penn does, and Bethe's liberal politics obviously distorted his "scientific" view. Physics is not engineering. I don't need a degree and experience in engineering, and neither do you, to admit that obvious fact. (I do have a degree and years of working in engineering, by the way.)

This is a common form of liberal bias: cite a liberal's opinion on something outside his area of expertise, while pretending he's an expert on that other issue too. It's fallacious and should be exposed.--Andy Schlafly 23:37, 20 January 2010 (EST)

This will be the last post I'll make on the subject, as we seem to be going in circles now. First, the fact remains that regardless of Bethe's expertise, he was an important critic of SDI at the time, and thus including him in a discussion of criticisms of SDI makes perfect sense. For example, on an article about the War in Vietnam, I would expect a criticism section to include Jane Fonda, not because she was a general or an expert on Vietnam, but because her critical stance was important and controversial at the time.

Second, I'm not sure why "cit[ing] a liberal's opinion on something outside his area of expertise, while pretending he's an expert on that other issue too" is only a form of "liberal bias"? Are you saying that conservatives only criticize or make pronouncements on subjects on which they have formal training and expertise? Are all critics of embryonic stem-cell research geneticists? Was Pat Robertson able to say that the earth quake in Haiti was a result of a pact with the devil during the Haitian Revolution because of his extensive training as a seismologist or an historian? Sadly, Andy, this is a trap into which we all fall, regardless of politics; to suggest otherwise, is simply wearing rose-colored glasses. Cheers. --Rubashov 08:25, 21 January 2010 (EST)

Jane Fonda was only "important" concerning Vietnam because of her highly publicized betrayal. No one respected Jane Fonda's expertise on military strategy, and there's no reason to think Hans Bethe had any expertise on engineering with respect to SDI. Wikipedia might as well feature Jane Fonda's opinion about SDI also!

More generally, it's a liberal trick to take a liberal who claims expertise in one field and try to pass him off as an expert in another field. That's what Wikipedia does with Bethe's opinion about SDI, and it is deceptive. Feel free to preface Bethe's liberal opinion about SDI with a disclaimer like, "Someone who had no training or expertise in engineering, Hans Bethe, was a critic of the engineering feasibility of SDI." See how many seconds that clarification lasts on Wikipedia before a liberal censors it.--Andy Schlafly 22:15, 25 January 2010 (EST)

That seems to be a slippery slope: Do you accept only the opinions of experts? Are only biologists allowed to speak about evolution? Then Conservapedia's article on Conservapedia:Lenski dialog should be introduced by the sentence : "Someone who had no training or expertise in biology, Andrew Schlafly, was a critic of Lenski's work and wrote the following...."

PhilG 08:17, 26 January 2010 (EST)

No, we don't overrely on "experts", see best of the public. We do object to how liberals deceitfully present an "expert opinion" in a field about which he has no expertise, as in the Bethe case. And since you raised the example of Lenski, have you been able to figure out which field his college education was in?--Andy Schlafly 08:43, 26 January 2010 (EST)

I noticed the claim added by a user that 'more than half of wikipedia users who claim to Christian are in fact mocking Christianity'

While saying 'some' might be appropriate, without any statistics to back that up the claim of 'more than half' is dubious at best. DWiggins 08:16, 26 January 2010 (EST)

I added that in, it seemed like more than half to me, but I didn't count. Honestly the whole section should be re-worded; I doubt sincerely that the page includes all Wikipedia editors, or even all of the prominent ones. The page is a joke, but it's worth mentioning on here. The section needs to be written in a way that doesn't assume any kind of accuracy on the part of the poll, and instead focuses on the staggering anti-religion content it drew.--JackTennant 19:20, 2 February 2010 (EST)

I also think this page could be looked at: [5] . It's probably alot more reliable, and has atheists or agnostics making up 3252 pages of users, and supposed Christians 1540 pages.--JackTennant 19:39, 2 February 2010 (EST)

Please add your info as you think best. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 20:25, 2 February 2010 (EST)

Okay, I re-wrote it and included the new link. I came to the conclusion of 8 times as atheistic, since 2/3 = ~66%, and 8x8=64. Math isn't my area though.--JackTennant 21:16, 2 February 2010 (EST)

I've added the following to the Saul Alinsky wiki page:

It is the opinion of some that Saul Alinksy was an avowed communist and believed that the only route to pure communism was the destruction of Capitalism. Those that hold this belief point to Alinsky's own words written in his book 'Rules for Radicals' "A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism."

Unfortunately, this is repeatedly removed due to 'vandalism'. I can only guess that they're trying to make believe that Saul ALinsky was a righteous patriot and stating facts that tarnish their propaganda is considered 'vandalism'

Feel free to add it to the list here of more than 200 examples of Bias in Wikipedia.--Andy Schlafly 15:24, 28 March 2010 (EDT)

the first problem here is that alinsky is describing marxists in that quote, and not himself. if you want to claim that he was an avowed communist you need to have him saying 'i am an avowed communist' or 'i believe that evils are caused by capitalism blah blah blah', not 'marxists believe that all evils are caused by capitalism'. just because someone is describing what marxists believe doesnt make that person a marxist. i really dont know anything about alinsky, and have no idea what he was. im just trying to describe why your edit got rejected with some detail. secondly, wikipedia articles about living people try to have much more strict rules about what gets in. so if person X is really a believer in philosophy Y, you need a reputable news source that is quoting him about it, or describing his book, or whatever. IE, if his book was really a big deal, then Im sure some reviews of it were published in various magazines or even academic journals, which you could probably find pretty easily with some help from a reference librarian and a good old academic article database at a library. but basically wikipedia has to have some rules about 'living person' articles in order to avoid libel and slander lawsuits, it cannot afford to let unreviewed opinions get put into articles about living people (although it does happen and there are many cases where wikipedia's rules have failed or been inconsistent... but that doesnt mean the rules themselves are bad ideas imho). good luck with any future editing you do there. Decora 22:03, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

A few years back, a professor of mine told me that he'd seen a case where Wikipedia had made some false claims and cited some made up study. A few weeks later, quite a few websites had picked up the study from Wikipedia. Somebody then removed the original made up reference on Wikipedia and cited the websites which had got it from Wikipedia!!

Wikipedia has now got so big that it can do this. It can actually make things up, people follow it, then it can cite the followers! It can MAKE UP facts then MAKE them well-referenced. If we could just find a proven case of this, it'd really improve this article.

Newton 17:00, 29 March 2010 (EDT)

Newton - a few years back someone at wikipedia wrote some article about some famous guy and had his name wrong, but it used as a reference some newspaper or something. the newspaper, though, had used wikipedia for a reference. however, the problem is that in the long run, this error got corrected soo... this particular case doesnt prove wikipedia is hopeless, it just proves that wikipedia's "reliable reference" policy has loopholes and errors in it. im sure there are worse examples though if one digs hard enough. the problem though, is that this sort of 'circular reference' error is not something inherent to wikipedia... any media of any form could succumb to this error. for example a radio show might repeat what it heard in a newspaper, a different reporter at another newspaper references the radio story, another reporter at the original newspaper references the second newspaper, etc. sooo another question is this,,, is wikipedia somehow inherently 'more likely' to have a 'circular reference' error than other media outlets? or less likely? and another question.... what makes conservapedia immune from such an error itself? Decora 22:09, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

In response to someone that kept quoting Wikipedia as fact, I wrote a quick article on Wikipedia to show that anyone can post there and the information itself may be bias. I used Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and members of congress, and climate gate as an example. The article was immediately deleted and the account was banned. The article was deleted while i was writing it strangely enough ( I had created the page then went back in to fill in the information ). A quick google search on "Wikipedia bias" lead me to you. Along with Google, Wikipedia is a common tool, but both have become so bias that the information they provide can no longer be trusted as "fair and balanced". Thanks again for your site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trvl2much (talk) -- 09:56, 25 April 2010

Once a significant amount of new information on Richard Dawkins is added to the Richard Dawkins article at Conservapedia I want to highlight the deficiencies of the Wikipedia article and show how their NPOV policy is often a policy in name only. We might even write an open letter to the atheist Mr. Wales and ask him why certain pieces of information is being left out of the Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article. Of course, that could be done with the Wikipedia atheism article as well. Since the USA and other countries have such a low estimation of atheism, it might be helpful to point out that the wiki founded by two atheist doesn't adhere to their NPOV policy when it comes to their Richard Dawkins and atheism articles. I had heard that with social media websites around the internet you can help spread a message far and wide. I certainly hope that is true. conservative 17:11, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

Can this list be split into sublists, perhaps based on topic? It is incredibly long and hard to find information when it is just a list of 200+ items. Ctown200 09:18, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

I'm making this change. My browser just doesn't even load this page. Even the header on the page says it's 200+ KB long, and 32 is the recommended limit. Ctown200 18:28, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

It's been several months since I posted this, and I was able to break up most of the article into smaller articles. I don't get to conservapedia much these days: frankly I prefer being on Wikipedia and trying to thwart their libral agenda. So I'm asking: can someone else please help to split this article into smaller articles, in the same manner that I did this? I'd really like to see this completed. Ctown200 14:07, 16 October 2010 (EDT)

Number 4 on this list states that "Wikipedia uses trivia to push its liberal icons on readers." In Conservapedia's article on Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (for some as-yet-unknown reason titled simply "Lenin"), Conservapedia mentions that the birth date of Vladimir Lenin coincides with the date of Earth Day. As both Mr. Lenin and Earth Day are objects of dislike among conservatives (Lenin led the October Revolution, bringing in an era of communism; he must be the conservative's rough equivalent to Satan), isn't it sort of hypocritical to accuse Wikipedia of using trivia to bias an article in favor of one person, and then to turn around and do the same thing on Conservapedia? msirois 11:08, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

That isn't senseless trivia. Many of the communists poured into the environmentalist movement, and Earth Day may have been picked for that connection. It's a striking coincidence, and we let the readers decide.--Andy Schlafly 11:23, 20 May 2010 (EDT)

While there is not doubt Wikipedia is a haven for pro-homosexual thinking, the example of KAPITALIST88 getting blocked is not a good one. I looked into the history of this editor. He used language to attack people that no good person should use. Now, we can forgive his passion in the face of sodomites, but he was challenged about a photograph that he claimed was his own and was then demonstrated to be taken from a website. While others may steal (as with all copyright violation), this editor repeatedly lied about it, thereby breaking the 9th commandment against false witness. I will remove the reference but leave the rest of the text since I believe it's true. But we need o be better than than celebrating sin to advance our cause.BobMack 19:01, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Sources? Citations? You expect us to just take your word on this? --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 19:09, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

I'm sorry. Here is the section from his talk page history [6]. Also, here is the section where the other editors discuss his behavior including their concerns about copyvio and what seems to be his repeated efforts to pretend that the photo was his and not taken from a newspaper website [7] Thanks. BobMack 19:15, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

Take a look at the WP article for the John Birch Society and associated discussion page on Wikipedia, regarding the labeling of the JBS as being "radical right-wing". Any attempts to remove "radical" are quickly reverted by the liberal gatekeepers, and the editor warned or banned.

Now take a look at the article for Code Pink. (about as "radical left wing" as you can get.) Any attempts there to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned.

So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe an extremely radical left-wing group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink
--CenterRight
21:13, 27 December 2010 (EST)

Superb example. Could you go ahead and add it as the top of the content entry here?--Andy Schlafly 21:23, 27 December 2010 (EST)

I am *really* new here (first attempt at posting) I am not following what you mean regarding "top of the content entry"--CenterRight 21:32, 27 December 2010 (EST)

It's because Wikipedia abandoned their one, primary rule: Neutral Point of View. We know it, they know it. Karajou 21:27, 27 December 2010 (EST)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Last year, I added Obama, Hillary Clinton and Maxine waters to the list of notable current/former Congress members who were progressives. My original addition lasted a few months, then were removed without explanation. I re-added them a couple weeks ago, and editors started immediately removing. I brought up issue on the Discussion page, where I included iron-clad quotes of Obama and Clinton describing themselves as progressives, and noted that Waters has been in the Progressive caucus since the 1990's. I am now in an edit war with leftist editors desperately trying to keep those three names off the list.--CenterRight 18:24, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Interesting. Thanks for your insights.--Andy Schlafly 19:54, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Hello, Just an observation, Wikipedia does refer to Loughner as a "nihilistic atheist". I feel that his entry should be reworded to reflect how Wikipedia glosses over the fact that this attributed to his actions. Just thinking aloud. EricAlstrom 20:15, 11 January 2011 (EST)

It appears to me that Wikipedia added "nihilistic" only after we criticized it here. The history file on Wikipedia shows that it was an addition late today, and you might be interested in checking the precise timing.--Andy Schlafly 20:56, 11 January 2011 (EST)

That's a great observation Andy! It's very pleasing to see that finally the conservative voice is being heard by the liberals at wikipedia. DanielG 21:04, 11 January 2011 (EST)

I edited the entries regarding netball and gender email lists under gender bias a bit to attempt to make them more accurate as to what happened at WP. The banned WP editor wasn't banned for his edits on the article, he was banned for attempting to "out" an editor to her supposed real-life employer and for harassment. I also removed individual editors' names because it doesn't really matter who did the edits, just that they occurred.

Considering how long this list has been around and how extensive it is, there are naturally a few claims that aren't necessarily correct anymore. I found two- 34 and 35, which are about the articles "North American Union" and "Eritrea". I was going to correct it but the spam filter won't allow it. I suspect that there also may be a few other examples that have gone out of date, I think the list might need to be refreshed a bit.--Pencil 10:22, 16 December 2011 (EST)

...and the "J" word ("Jesus") appears 47,959 times! ScottDG 09:37, 23 December 2011 (EST)

Perhaps, but do you think that word belongs in an encyclopedia at all?--James Wilson 10:02, 23 December 2011 (EST)

Yes. It exists, it has a history, people use it. It belongs in an encyclopedia as much as do other unsavory words/ideas such as "murder." ScottDG 10:13, 23 December 2011 (EST)

It has as much educational value as toilet water. The number for "F" is 32,000+ if you select all search fields. Biased toward the lowest common denominator. --Jpatt 10:50, 23 December 2011 (EST)

Jpatt said it well. Wikipedia is rife with anti-intellectual bickering and habitual swearing.--James Wilson 17:31, 23 December 2011 (EST)

"Larry Sanger, who founded Wikipedia in 2001 with Jimmy Wales only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the Wikipedia community 'had no respect for experts.'"[73]

I'm a bit confused about this. Thus is it arguing that Wikipedia adopts a Best of the Public approach? HumanGeographer 11:46, 23 December 2011 (EST)

I've just had a flick through the rest of these - this article is absolutely ridiculous and half of them should be removed simply on common sense. HumanGeographer 11:50, 23 December 2011 (EST)

Why is there such a vast amount of examples under "General/Uncategorized"? The point that Wikipedia is left-leaning is very quickly proven; there is no reason to have 60+ examples. DynaboyJ 15:57, 30 December 2011 (EST)

If there are duplicate examples, feel free to delete them. This page is not protected. As for not having too many examples, as an encyclopedia, it is necessary that we list all new biases in Wikipedia; indeed, we must continuously show that Wikipedia is biased by having plenty of fresh examples. NickP 15:59, 30 December 2011 (EST)

It's just that most of the examples are informal and rude (calling policies "silly" multiple times) and seems to bash Wikipedia just out of spite. DynaboyJ 16:03, 30 December 2011 (EST)

The General/Uncategorized, by my understanding, is not supposed to be there. People should move it to the right page. I worked on this a bit a few months ago. I'm back now. Will try to do more. RickTx 16:46, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

Hey,

Have you guys taken a look at the ethnocentrism category on Wikipedia? They have labeled "American exceptionalism" under the category of ethnocentrism and they label it as "nationalism" and are very biased against the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ethoncentrism. http://en.wikipedia.org/category:ethoncentrism. You will find American exceptionalism listed there. Among other things I noticed on Wikipedia. They label Creationism under the category of denialism. They have a creation myths category on there, where they label Creationism as a myth. I'm sure that would of interest to you people.

They label Creation Science under the category of Pseudoscience. Are you paying attention? How come none of this stuff has been talked about?

How about pushing the misc. examples into a separate subpage and then moving the three best examples from each subpage back to the main example list? I suspect most users will just go to the misc. examples and not read the better examples just because they have been sorted by subject matter. Wschact 09:56, 17 July 2012 (EDT)

Sounds great. Pleaes improve as you think best.--Andy Schlafly 10:17, 17 July 2012 (EDT)

I am starting but it will take a bit of time to do correctly. Thanks, Andy. Wschact 23:38, 17 July 2012 (EDT)

Any comments or feedback? Wschact 23:42, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

Hey guys, have you guys checked out the articles promoting the far-left's dismantling of society as if it is a legitimate cause? Have you seen the far-right politics article that basically paints the far-right as supremacist and hierarchical and bigoted, while it praises far-left politics and even supports their radical destruction if society and supporting anarchy by dismantling the social structure and creating anarchy and destroying the "supremacist" and painting those who want a socially-structured society as "Far-right" in typical communist language. While failing to mention the black-supremacist politics common on the far-left, their Islamic supremacist politics and presents far-left politics as a healthy and balanced form of politics. They present the fringe left ideals of dismantling and destroying social structures and actively promote far-left politics, while "denigrating" far-right politics by proclaiming them "extremists" and in favor of social oppression, racism, supremacist politics that involve race and a society where a balanced social structure and healthy and socially normal society is presented as a "far-right" hierarchial ideal, while failing to mention the racism on the far-left, its supremacist anti-Semitic, pro-Palestinian politics, its hatred against Israel, its hate rallies calling for killing Bush. Nope, far-left politics good, far-right (our politics of regular conservatives smeared as "far-right" by Wikipedia. Check out those two articles about far-right politics and far-left politics and you'll see what I am talking about.

I edited Wikipedia to fix a few of the issues mentioned on this page and subpages (for example, adding the official picture of Sally Kern); should the fixed issues just be removed from this page, or should they be edited to say that Wikipedia used to have these issues before they were fixed in response to being mentioned here? --GRuban 14:15, 1 August 2013 (EDT)

In my opinion I think that the individual issues should stay here, but with the added caveat that they were addressed and corrected on such-and-such date. Karajou 14:50, 1 August 2013 (EDT)

Agreed. Then maybe readers can see how long the bias lasts without correction. --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:45, 17 August 2013 (EDT)

That is why it is important to use permalinks when citing to Wikipedia. I believe that examples should remain on these pages. But if an example is fixed after a short period, we may consider moving it to the subpage and replacing it with another example from that subpage which has not yet been fixed. Thanks, Wschact 10:39, 20 August 2013 (EDT)

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388479/neil-degrasse-tysons-text-burning-followers-tim-cavanaugh

--Joshua Zambrano 11:40, 23 September 2014 (EDT)

I have an unusual case. I was reviewing the particulars of what happened with my Wikipedia ban. I may be the only editor in Wikipedia history to have been indefinitely banned for over 4 years because I fixed a typo. I think my case may prove to be one of the strongest examples of Wikipedia bias because there ultimately was no justification for the ban.

1. Claims that I'd "edit warred" were actually caused by my being lured into an edit war over fixing a typo.[8] The controversial edit I made[9] was in actuality just a typo fix, the word was wrong given the Gallup source. This was discussed here.[10] UltraExactzz realized I was being falsely accused of an edit war and reversed the ban. User:NeutralHomer furthermore attempted to force an edit war over added template warnings to my talk page which I considered a violation of WP:HUSH, I should have the right to delete warnings posted to my page.[11]

2. A community topic ban was reimposed by the same editor who opposed my edits in the first place, while falsely claiming consensus.[12] JzG was the same editor who opposed my edits and tried to get me in trouble for them months earlier.[13] In actuality the so-called "consensus" was reached only by editors I myself was disagreeing with and had contacted by posting notices about the conflict on their page to let them know they were being discussed in the conversation.[14]

3. Even then the topic ban only applied to articles, not their talk pages.[15] I was blocked ultimately not for making edits to any page, but simply discussing rationally on a talk page.[16][17] This was mentioned here.[18]

4. Afterward my talk page was redirected to my user page by User:Innotata to prevent my appealing my block for years.[19]

Basically I got accused of edit warring after someone reverted my attempts to fix a typo, resulting in a topic ban, and then got banned for violating the topic ban because I made edits to the Obama talk page. --Joshua Zambrano 21:56, 1 February 2015 (EST)

The current Wikipedia page on Osteopathy, in the article's lead area, describes osteopathy as pseudo-medicine, and as "quackery," despite the fact that American law equates osteopathy as a legal equal to regular medical practice (allopathy). The entire lead section of Wikipedia's current Osteopathy article is written in such a way so as to lead a typical reader to believe that osteopathy has little or no proven scientific value. Would anybody here mind if I added a section about osteopathy? Thanks, Npov-maniac (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2018 (EDT)

There's no need to add a new section for it -- I recommend adding it to the "Science and Evolution" section. Unless it's arguably one of the most notable/blatant examples of WP bias in this topic (compared to the others), I recommend just adding it to the sub-article. I also recommend adding permalinks. Besides all this, I think adding this would be helpful. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2018 (EDT)

In the past, to Wikipedia's credit, I think that they tried to stop bias like people labeling groups like Family Research Council "hate groups" merely because groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center said they were. However, it seems that, within the last dozen months or so, that they've been letting such accusations as "hate group" or "far right" or things of that nature sink through. They've had articles on the Parkland March but, as far as I know, nothing on the pro-life march lately. Also, they even have entries like "fake news" where they try and define what fake news is. Besides, the Wikimedia Foundation is definitely a Left-wing foundation. Admittedly, it's not one of the big ones like Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Open Society Foundation, Clinton Foundation, Ford Foundation, etc, but it is definitely one of them. PatriotMongoose (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2018 (EDT)

I added in another thing to the homosexuality section. You wouldn't believe it, but if you even change the parts in Wikipedia's "same sex marriage in the United States" article that read "states that support same sex marriage" to accurately say "states that support the legalization of same sex marriage" you'll get kicked off of their site. What a bunch of queers. Whoever owns Wikipedia must be some kind of pedophile.

In addition in the "Evolution" section I took out the part that said "despite the strong evidence that dinosaurs and man lived together...". On the contrary, there is strong evidence that dinosaurs did not live with man, and if someone is vandalizing this site, please don't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Knowledge spouse (talk)

The part about dinosaurs was intentional, and there is strong evidence that they lived together. CP does not dogmatically accept evolution to the exclusion of other scientifically and historically valid views. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2018 (EST)

Would it not be good to have a section in this article devoted to Wikipedia's bias of coverage in its topics? This could say that there tends to be a big emphasis on popular media culture topics in Wikipedia - as Wikipedia itself points out, the article on Coronation Street is longer than the article on Tony Blair. Carltonio (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2019 (EDT)

"Wikipedia is heavily oriented toward non-American countries and persons. A check of the WP obituary list each day repeatedly lists dozens of people from other countries than the United States. These people are mostly unknown in the USA, and many seem "non-notable" by Wikipedia's own standards of "notability." The same situation is also observable in the "Did You Know?" section on the WP main page, as foreign topics usually get top billing over American topics." What's wrong with that? Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. And it's not so much biased against America as just inclusive when it comes to the rest of the world.

Not all the news in Wikipedia is locked by administrators, so if you want to counter the bias of coverage go ahead. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:48, 29 March 2020 (EDT)

I think this article is a good example of bias gone extreme on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has an entire article with the completely false title "Trump administration family separation policy". Trump has never had any policy of separating children from their families. The Zero Tolerance policy is about following the law, about prosecuting those who break the law. It has nothing to do with family separations, and is not the primary cause of those separations. The family separations were a direct consequence of the 2016 court order on the Flores Settlement, that demanded that children be released while the "same should not be afforded" to their mother/parents. A court order that came while Obama was President. The Executive order that President Trump announced to end these family separations did NOT stop or alter his Zero Tolerance Policy at all(the Zero Tolerance Policy had nothing to do with the separations of families) but only requested that the Attorney General have the Flores Settlement altered(he ordered the AG to "promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 "Flores settlement", in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings"). This Wikipedia article is based on pure political propaganda from media reports hostile to the current U.S. President, and ignorance of the actual facts. The title of the articles is therefor false. Also every single sentence in the beginning of the article is false:

"The Trump administration family separation policy is an aspect of US President Donald Trump's immigration policy" - Wrong. Trump has never had any policy of separating families.

"The policy was presented to the public as a "zero tolerance" approach intended to deter illegal immigration and to encourage tougher legislation". - Wrong. The Zero Tolerance Policy is only about following the law, it is the LAW that demands those separations.

"It was adopted across the entire US–Mexico border from April 2018 until June 2018, however later investigations found that the practice of family separations had begun a year previous to the public announcement" - Because it had NOTHING to do with the Zero Tolerance Policy, but was a direct result of the ruling on the Flores Settlement in 2016.

"Under the policy, federal authorities separated children from parents or guardians with whom they had entered the US illegally. The adults were prosecuted and held in federal jails, and the children placed under the supervision of the US Department of Health and Human Services". - Wrong. This was a consequence of the 2016 court order on the Flores Law, not due to any policy of the President

I have made many attempts at changing/renaming/deleting the Wikipedia article, as well as discussing the bias on the talk page, only to be completely dismissed by the left leaning administrators involved in the page. --PolitiCeon (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2020 (EDT)

A Breitbart writer, whose pseudonym is "T.D. Adler," has written many articles of examples of blatant Wikipedia bias: [20] These should be used to expand and update this article. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2020 (EDT)

Terrific suggestion.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2020 (EDT)

This article could point out that Wikipedia itself has articles entitled "Gender bias in Wikipedia" and "Racial bias in Wikipedia". Carltonio (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2020 (EDT)

I found a good example of leftist bias on Wikipedia on the article talk page mentioned above. Towards the end of the discussion, it becomes obvious that a source quoting comments explicitly made by Schumer is considered to be "editorializing". Meanwhile, quotes from President Trump taken out of context by the same sources is absolutely acceptable. MAGAViking (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2021 (EST)

My understanding is that wikipedia has effectively banned references to any non-liberal newsite, including Fox Nex, the NY Post and the UK's DailyMail. Of course CNN, MSNBc, NYT and the guardian are all okay.

(1) I have not seen this issue addressed before, but it present a large, on-going bias. To me it represents the death-nail of neutrality in Wikipedia.

(2) Is there any mention of this issue on this site??

(3) When did wikipedia begin banning conservative sites?

Great points. Do others here know the answer?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:09, November 25, 2021 (EST)